|
Invoke: How would you resolve religious liberty v. the right to marry?
Op-Ed · September 17, 2015
We posted a question on Twitter and Facebook: In regards to Kim Davis: How would you resolve religious liberty v. the right to marry?
The question itself received 3 “Likes” on Facebook. Here are some highlights of the many responses to that question:
Matt Chinander: Easy: One is the law, one is a personal belief. 24 Likes
Tony Wasion: But that personal belief is protected by the First Amendment. 1 Like
Kyle Lanham: She can believe what she wants, but she can’t impose her beliefs on others. She can’t break the law because of her beliefs. Imagine if she told black people they can’t get married. Ya, it’s basically the same thing now, discrimination. 1 Like
Nick Goodweiler: The first amendment also states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” so therefore she has the freedom to say she doesn’t like gay marriage but has no authority to stop it. You can’t pick and chose parts of amendments that you like. 1 Like
• • •
Kandi Baylor: If the requirements of your job go against your personal beliefs, find a new job that aligns with your morals. 36 Likes
Mary Hahn-Sexton: Exactly! And don’t impose your beliefs on others!! 18 Likes
Jodi Clemens: I’d find a new job. 8 Likes
Mary Hahn-Sexton: Last I knew if you didn’t perform your job duties you no longer had a job. 16 Likes
• • •
Marlene Bolger: … She was elected to do her JOB. 6 Likes
Chris ‘Goose’ Slach: Obviously her religious beliefs aren’t as strong on certain things as they are about gay marriage. i.e.: Being married and divorced to 3 different men. Then cheating on all 3 with 2 out of the 3 men. 6 Likes
Mark Cooper: … She was reborn AFTER all the stuff you want to judge her for. What the SCOTUS did was make law, not abide by the Constitution. Marriage is a state decision, not a federal one. Marriage is a state decision, not a federal one. To resolve this issue, one has to look at the Kentucky code to determine whether she was or was not within her official rights to quit issuing all marriage licenses. … 3 Likes.
Jodi Clemens: No self-righteousness here, I’m a sinner. Not judging her at all for her beliefs. She can believe whatever she wants and she is allowed to do so under protection of the law. However, she isn’t allowed to break the equal rights clause of the U.S. Constitution. 6 Likes
Mary Hahn-Sexton: Sinning then saying you are reborn does not give you the right to judge others. 5 Likes
Kat Pence: Reborn my aching ---. Going to church on Sunday doesn’t absolve you from being a rotten person the rest of the week. 1 Like
Cathy Lynn Ohrt: This was inevitable and the SCOTUS knew it. With Obamacare, John Roberts changed the wording to “tax” instead of “fine” to make it acceptable. In this case, they could have changed the verbiage to “union” instead of “marriage” with all the rights of marriage. This would have satisfied those who believe that the word marriage is between a man and a woman. It would also have given all rights under the law to people who don’t feel that way. Whether you feel it is right or wrong, I think calling gay “marriage” a “union” would have made things much less complicated for everyone.
Alexis Johnson: It would be nice if “union” was the word for the legal side of any joining of two adults, and “marriage” remained solely a religious word. 3 Likes
Brian James: In our system of government you do your job. If you don’t like it leave. 1 Like
Cathy Lynn Ohrt: She had her job before the law changed. She should not leave her position but she should let those in her office who do not have a religious objection issue license and be content to not have her name on the document. The rights of both parties are then being protected. Adjust an administrative technicality, problem solved.
• • •
Nate Steele: (Posts photo of sign reading “No fishing licenses will be distributed henceforth. Clerk is now a Vegan.”) 4 Likes
Nancy Eberhart Martin: I’m totally for religious liberty. 1 Like
Jason JP Miller: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..” — First Amendment of the Constitution. Or is that document just a guideline now given how many liberties Obama has taken with it? ...
Matt Chinander: The debate here is when can someone exercise this belief? Can they exercise it when it goes against a local/state/federal law? Not debating, just asking the question here (rhetorically). Kind of a “chicken or the egg” situation.
Jason JP Miller: Supremacy Clause
Nick Goodweiler: Her belief is that gay marriage is wrong. She can exercise that belief by saying she believes it’s wrong. The U.S. government issues marriage licenses that are separate from religious beliefs. Only common word is marriage.
Therefore her beliefs state that in a church stance, gay people cannot marry. In the government version of marriage it means nothing. Therefore she cannot legally refuse to give these out. Unless it specifically states, in the Bible, you can’t issue a marriage license from the state.
The biggest hypocrisy of this whole thing is if a heterosexual couple came to get a license she wouldn’t bat an eye but little to her knowledge both those people could be atheists.
Where do you draw the line? 1 Like
Tony Todd: It only becomes a question of law when you are in contempt of court. There is no protection (by) the First Amendment no matter how you try to twist it.
It’s a question of doing the job that you have accepted, and are paid for. If the job offends your religious belief then you need to find another job. Refusing to do your job, that is paid by the peoples’ taxes, is stealing from the people. It’s not complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
